2.0GHz vs 2.3 vs 2.6

[NASound]

Coming from a 2008 core 2 duo 2.2GHz, is the i7 2.0GHz going to be a huge step up in performance all round? Assuming all other things (RAM, SSD etc) are equal (they're not!), will the lower clock speed still out-perform the older but higher frequency processor on all tasks?

Im trying to decide whether to go for the higher spec 2.3GHz, or even max it out to the 2.6GHz.

My main use is Pro Tools, running sessions of up to around 50 audio tracks (not tracking).

Thanks

 

[maflynn]

At this stage of CPU development I don't think you'll be seeing much speed difference between .3 GHz.

Which model are you looking at the high end 15" rMBP or the base model?

 

[NASound]

Looking at the 15" 2.0GHz. I originally planned to get the highest spec, but from what Ive read, the dGPU isnt going to gain me much. And Ive found that 8GB RAM has been more than enough on my Mac Mini, even with fairly large Pro Tools sessions.

So its the processor speed Im really trying to figure out. I could pay an extra £100 to make the jump to 2.3GHz...

 

[Wuiffi]

2.0GHz vs 2.3 vs 2.6

Assuming all other things (RAM, SSD etc) are equal (they're not!), will the lower clock speed still out-perform the older but higher frequency processor on all tasks?

Your old CPu has 2 cores wirh a clock of 2.2Ghz. It can handle 2 threads simultaiously. The new one (2.0) has 4 cores which handle 8 threads. It has a turboboost, meaning is can overclock itself up to 3.2Ghz. Furthermore, due to different improvements even 2 cores with 2 threads (running at 2.0) would easily outperform your old computer

 

[theKitch]

I came from a dual core 2.26 2009 MBP and moved to the 15 quad core 2.0. I can't imagine what I'll ever do with all of this processing power. Rendering video and photos is stunningly fast. It feels like 10x performance vs what I had previously.

 

[NASound]

Thanks for the responses.

It seemed slightly strange to me that my new machine with have a lower processor speed than my 2008 model. Good to know that turbo boost, multiple cores (not to mention probable changes in architecture over the last few years?) will mean this is the big leap Im hoping for.

 

[jamesjingyi]

Thanks for the responses.

It seemed slightly strange to me that my new machine with have a lower processor speed than my 2008 model. Good to know that turbo boost, multiple cores (not to mention probable changes in architecture over the last few years?) will mean this is the big leap Im hoping for.

I think the clock speed is for each core and please somebody correct me if I am wrong but this will lead to 2.0x4=8.0Ghz? Compared to your previous 2.2x2=4.4Ghz. Thats how I understood it anyway. The 8 threads will make your computer behave like an eight core machine as the dual core in my MBA makes it perform like a quad core. iStat agrees:

 

[Wuiffi]

2.0GHz vs 2.3 vs 2.6

I think the clock speed is for each core and please somebody correct me if I am wrong but this will lead to 2.0x4=8.0Ghz? Compared to your previous 2.2x2=4.4Ghz.

Yeah.... You can't do that, that's not how multicore cpus work. But it doesn't matter. According to benchmarks the new 2.0 ghz should have more than 3 times the computepower of the old one. Furthermore the improvement in graphics is huge and it all comes in a 47W package. That means that all that power needs less energy than the old one. And as mentioned, there are a lot of other improvments. Most you will not notice (they just speed stuff up) but for example you can use a full HD TV screen with an AppleTV to stream video while surfing the web and for the new processor this is like sitting on the beach and enjoying a cocktail

 

[theKitch]

Hyper-threading is not really like a full additional core. It is just another thread that the processor can handle. This means that the OS can push 8 threads onto the CPU (in a quad core) and then the CPU can decide how best to organize the throughput of those threads on the four cores that it has available. This basically leads to a much higher efficiency for execution.

A quad core isn't 4x2.0GHz purely. Although it is darn close for multi-threaded applicaitons.

Regardless, there are few single threaded apps out there that are REALLY CPU intensive. Anything that the user is interacting with, other than games, is not maxing out the CPU for the most part. What is nice is that in today's multitasking environments that more cores can lead to a snappier system overall because applications get more threads to work on with less competition.

I really can't explain how massive the difference is going to this quad core system. I'm beyond thrilled.

----------

Yeah.... You can't do that, that's not how multicore cpus work. But it doesn't matter. According to benchmarks the new 2.0 ghz should have more than 3 times the computepower of the old one. Furthermore the improvement in graphics is huge and it all comes in a 47W package. That means that all that power needs less energy than the old one. And as mentioned, there are a lot of other improvments. Most you will not notice (they just speed stuff up) but for example you can use a full HD TV screen with an AppleTV to stream video while surfing the web and for the new processor this is like sitting on the beach and enjoying a cocktail

Exactly. The multitasking experience is stunning. I can edit and render RAW files in lightroom running full screen on my 27" external monitor while I play 1080p youtube flash videos on the laptop display. My old Core 2 Duo couldn't do either of these things alone very well.